Slashdot Mirror
Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft
54mc writes "The Houston Police Department was filmed testing an unmanned aircraft in a secretive gathering on Wednesday. The media were not allowed into the event; however they were told that the aircraft would be used for 'mobility' and 'tactical' issues, and possibly even for writing traffic tickets. The aircraft has a wingspan of 10 feet and is said to cost from $30K to $1M. Pictures and video are available at the link." The article mentions that the craft was being operated by staff from a private firm called Insitu, Inc.. The device in the video looks like the firm's ScanEagle.
I for one want to see if the same "+5 informative", "+5 insightful" inflamed comments about how a similar thing happening in Venezuela was a proof of a totalitarian government will be repeated on this thread, by the same set of people.
Normaly copters are used to supplement an active investigation. If you see one, you know something is up ( or its just the local TV station running traffic reports.. )
These things will just fly around and look at everyone, hoping to catch you with your pants down. Later they will just record every move everyone makes, regardless of any suspicion. Do you want that? I don't. Unless I'm under active court supported suspicion, they don't have a right to 'follow' me around, 'just in case'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"The privacy nutters never seem to come up with better arguments then "this won't allow us to break the law anymore". Fine with me, don't like the law, change it, don't break it."
What an intelligent suggestion... and one that shows your comprehensive knowledge of history! Why, if only the citizens of the USSR had known, they could have just changed the law rather than running from the gulag! Same goes for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and even the United States under slavery. What were those people thinking, rebelling against slavery, running away from their legal owners, protesting the laws by violating them? They should have just changed the law, not broken it!
Yes, you really do seem to understand this. I applaud your pure insight. When an unjust law exists, it is our responsibility to obey it!
You have no expectation of privacy in public. Maybe that's why they call it "public". Don't like it? Stay home and close your windows.
I'm just curious. Is there anything that the state could do in "public" where you would finally say, "that's enough"? Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample? Would you still say, "don't like it, just stay home"? I hope you would - and if so, there must be a line somewhere between the two. Where would you draw that line? And does it seem so radical to you that some of us may choose to draw that line closer to protecting privacy and freedom of movement than you might?